Canon Elan IIe and Fuji 1600 question?

<p>I was give 5 rolls of expired but frozen rolls of Fujifilm Superia 1600, 24 exposure rolls. Does anyone have experience with high ISO film and what were the results? I'm wondering if I would get better results if I exposed it at ISO 800? For the cost of processing and getting a CD I'm going to give it a try.</p>

<p>I have shot both Fuji Superia 1600 and Fuji Press 1600 at iso 1600. Superia gave nice results for 10x15cm pictures. Expired Press were more of pastel tones. Try to rate it iso 1600 and move from there if necessary.</p>

<p>No personal experience with this particular film with its high ISO, but given the latitude of most C/N films, probably it would work reasonably well at its original rating.</p>

<p>On the other hand, contemporary tests in the old photo magazines, also suggested that the high ISO ratings of such films were a little "optimistic" even when new and produced pretty thin negatives.<br>

Personally, if I had 5 rolls of it, I'd try shooting one roll half at 800 and half at 1600 <strong><em>IF I could scan it myself. </em></strong><br>

Getting a CD from the processor, I'd just shoot at 800 for the first roll and see if it is dense or thin....<br>

Then use the results as indicated for the other 4 rolls.</p>

<p>Thanks for the info, loaded up my Elan IIe and F5 last night to give it a try this weekend. Since it's only 24 exposres I'm going to try a roll at ISO 800 and at 1600 based on the advice given. With the crappy rainy weather with constant cloud cover this seems like the perfect film. What was this high speed film made for? Sports or Theaters where one couldn't use a flash? What is meant by a thin negative?</p>

<p>It's useful for indoor shots with some natural light available, and fast enough where one can stop down a fast lens somewhat, or have hand-holdable speeds with later, slower zooms.</p>

<p>A thin negative is one that looks thin. Not much depth, or a range of tonality between darkest and lightest. Areas that are supposed to be very dark will instead look much lighter (or darker, since you're looking at a negative). When developed, the small range between lightest and darkest can easily be seen.</p>

<p>No need to do one roll at 800 and another at 1600. Just bracket your shots and see what looks best, then you'll know.<br /><br />1600 speed film is going to be grainy even if it's new.<br /><br />Haven't shot either in a long time but some of the Fuji Superia and Fuji Press films had the same edge codes. I suspect they were the same film under different branding.</p>

<p>Compared to black and white films, color films have the advantage that dye clouds have less of a grain look than metallic silver. The characteristics of a color film are similar to that of a black and white film two stops faster. </p>

<p>Increasing exposure means using more of the smaller grains. As such high ISO films are normally used when there isn't so much light, that often isn't a choice. If you do have the choice, going to ISO 800 is probably reasonable for new or old film. </p>

Hello Mark....you didn't say how expired they were. I've used Superia 1600/Natura 1600 and rate it at 1250 without issue.

Beautiful grain actually. It has been a few years but I recently bought some new Natura 1600 from Tokyo so I am looking

forward to it as well. Have you used it yet?